Terrorism, International

“International terrorism” is a contested term. In popular usage, it is typically taken to refer to groups that use “terrorist” tactics, such as targeting civilians, across national borders. A contemporary example of “international terrorism” is the transnational Al Qaeda network. But the term has been used to describe phenomena as diverse as the 19th-century anarchist movement, the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1970s and 1980s, and the various Marxist groups operating in Europe and elsewhere during the 1970s, such as the Italian Red Brigades.

Both parts of the term are contested. The term “terrorism” continues to elicit passionate debate, both in terms of how it should be defined (and whether it constitutes a separate category of violence) and how it is used. Definitions range from those encompassing most forms of political violence (rendering it indistinguishable from other forms of warfare) to those encompassing most oppositional activism (rendering it indistinguishable from nonviolent activism). A more precise set of definitions defines it with reference to the type of target selected (usually noncombatants) and to the way in which violence is used to inculcate fear in a wider audience than those actually targeted, to achieve political change. Disagreements persist, though, over who can be considered a “noncombatant” and whether one can generalize such a definition, given that the very notion of “noncombatant” is intertwined with the development of the modern state and warfare in Europe, while boundaries between combatants and civilians are blurred by practices such as conscription and aerial and asymmetric warfare.

Similarly, controversy continues to rage over how the term is applied. Acts of violence against military personnel, for instance, are regularly labeled “terrorist,” while state actors engaging in “terrorist” tactics (as defined above) are typically not labeled thus—unless they are considered “rogue” states. Definitions are routinely used beyond their analytical reach to describe any acts by actors who have been labeled “terrorist” by state elites. What or who is considered “terrorist” is thus profoundly shaped by political context. Before terrorism became a widely accepted term, acts of violence in 1970s Italy, for instance, were described as bombings or kidnappings. Only in retrospect, when the term had gained international credence in the context of the Cold War, were these acts labeled “terrorist.” The term is, moreover, used by governments and nonstate actors alike to delegitimize opponents and justify extraordinary measures against them. This has led some, particularly critical terrorism scholars, to argue that the term is a political–normative tool, rather than a useful analytical concept.

The “international” part of the term is also contested. Some reserve the term “international terrorism” for the acts of those whose goals, membership, and operations cross national boundaries. Others [Page 2592]apply it to the acts of any group operating in more than one state, even if goals and membership are limited to one state. Yet others use the term interchangeably with “terrorism,” particularly in the context of the global war on terror where “terrorism” has become synonymous with opposition to the international order, regardless of one's aims. The U.S. State Department, for instance, refers to all organizations it has labeled “terrorist” as indulging in “global terrorism.” Intriguingly, few use “international terrorism” to describe acts of state terrorism across borders, even though within the discipline of international politics, the term “international” is usually reserved for relationships between states (as opposed to “transnational,” which refers to nonstate actors across borders). Those who recognize this distinction tend to use the term “transnational terrorism” to refer to nonstate terrorism across boundaries.

...